The Best and Worst of 2025

[Chig]

meh, sorry, i didn't like the 45mm f1.2 - it's a very specialized lens that you have to like the look out of the lens. if you don't, then it's dead to you. Not everyone wants a lens with that yes, it's a f/1.2, but it's a f/1.2 because they are allowing a literal dump truck of aberrations to exist.

And the Sony 50-150 is a lens that has never been done before, and it's optically, mechanically, everything, excellent.

if the 50-150 didn't make the cut as the best, then there's tons of others I would choose over the 45mm even if I had to take into account "bang for buck" - ie: the Sigma 200/2, or the freakishly incredible Sony 100mm Macro. there's just way too many amazing lenses out there this year, that in my mind would be above the 45mm.

I do like Canon making bang for the buck lenses that will have their followings - much like the EF mount, so it's all a good thing. as long as they fire the dude that decided the 75-300 was a good idea.

meh, sorry, i didn't like the 45mm f1.2 - it's a very specialized lens that you have to like the look out of the lens. if you don't, then it's dead to you. Not everyone wants a lens with that yes, it's a f/1.2, but it's a f/1.2 because they are allowing a literal dump truck of aberrations to exist.

Well clearly you don't know what "literal" means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language) but calling the RF 45mm a very specialised lens is bizarre: I spent most of Xmas Day taking family photos with it and it performed brilliantly and I found it very versatile as you'd expect with 45mm. It does have some minor flaws but they make barely any difference to the results in normal usage.

 

[Del Paso]

Thanks for the link, which I have now read and the subsequent discussion. I get your point about the number of pixels in the corners etc when compressed. It remains moot until someone has done the necessary investigation to discover whether there is the same amount of image quality and information content in the periphery of an image that is stretched by an analogue lens method or a mathematical method of expansion of the compressed periphery. Information is lost on compression and the question is whether the analogue lens method manages to avoid that loss by prevention or is it simply expanding the compression similar to digital? I don't know the answer. Do you know as I would like to learn whether it does? It probably depends on how much effort and expenses they put in.

I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?
OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

 

[Richard CR]

I attempted some testing for the correction of diffraction using DLO and found limitations in lenses where it could be applied. It can be applied to the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii and with the 1.4xTC but it is not compatible with the 2x. It is compatible with the 2x on the RF 100-500mm. And it is not compatible with the RF 100-400mm on the R7. The DLO box was greyed out n those incompatible cases.

I recall when I did testing, I had a difficult time seeing the diffraction correction effects. They were quite subtle. The aberration correction, especially at the time the Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM, which had the worst PF known to the modern photography universe, would clean up amazingly well.

That was what impressed me the most - since PF was troublesome to correct in post.

 

[EricN]

I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?
OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

It's an interesting concept. I have thought of anoth
using a curved sensor, but it's probably quite difficult manufacture and might potentially require a dedicated sensor and lens pairing

 

[AlanF]

I recall when I did testing, I had a difficult time seeing the diffraction correction effects. They were quite subtle. The aberration correction, especially at the time the Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM, which had the worst PF known to the modern photography universe, would clean up amazingly well.

That was what impressed me the most - since PF was troublesome to correct in post.

I have never been happy with DxO on the the RF 100-500mm + 2xTC and tended to use no sharpening and go over to Topaz for that. The testing just done found DPP4 did a decent job. I did mention that DPP4 has the DLO box greyed out for the RF 100-400mm. It was bad with the lens with the remaining settings and gave a soft image compared with DxO.

 

[Del Paso]

It's an interesting concept. I have thought of anoth
using a curved sensor, but it's probably quite difficult manufacture and might potentially require a dedicated sensor and lens pairing

It could work, but only with a variable curvature, since different lenses have different aberrations. And it would be horribly complex to develop and produce with the degree of reliability and precision required.

 

[AlanF]

I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?
OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

The native diameter of the image circle of a thin simple lens of focal length f is about 2f, independent of the format of the camera. The lens makers have to work hard to get it anastigmatic to about f and then even harder to get the wide angle and ultra wide. If you want to have the image circle of an MF on an FF sensor, it would cost the same as making an MF lens.

 

[AlanF]

It's an interesting concept. I have thought of anoth
using a curved sensor, but it's probably quite difficult manufacture and might potentially require a dedicated sensor and lens pairing

Canon was reported on CR some years ago of patenting a (variable) curved sensor. If the focal length of the concave sensor were equal to the f of the lens, that would certainly help with vignetting. A flexible sensor would require a set of lenses for use with them. That would set up a whole new range of lenses for profit.

 

[AlanF]

I recall when I did testing, I had a difficult time seeing the diffraction correction effects. They were quite subtle. The aberration correction, especially at the time the Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM, which had the worst PF known to the modern photography universe, would clean up amazingly well.

That was what impressed me the most - since PF was troublesome to correct in post.

Have you tried the Canon paid add-on of a neural network processing tool?

 

[Jirka]

In 2025, I like the R6 mark III the most from Canon - its pre-shooting and higher sensor resolution really tempt me to buy it
On the other hand, I don't understand the introduction of the RF 75-300 lens - they shouldn't have done that - it's terrible

 

[rombe3jr]

That Sony 50-150/2GM is a staggeringly good lens, and just 1340g. The 16-28/2GM is coming soon to complete the trio, hopefully it matches up to the other two f2GM zooms.

The Sigma 200/2 with it's hyper-fast AF, incredible image quality, and excellent stabilization is worth a mention. If only Sony didn't cripple 3rd party glass with that 15fps limit, or if Panasonic had AF that was able to track fast moving subjects. Or if Canon & Nikon weren't terrified of Sigma. This lens deserves better cameras to be mounted on.

Laowa's incredible T/S lenses are another highlight of the year. Superb performance at bargain (for T/S glass!) prices. Being MF only, they are available for RF, too.

The Sigma does come in L mount, so it is accessible to the excellent S1RII & S1II cameras.

 

[rombe3jr]

Some other contenders for worst might be the Sony FX2, Sony RX1R III and the Fujifilm X half. All could have had a place in their respective market, but they were overpriced by a fair amount. At least percentage wise probably all in the 20% - 30% range. If you think about it, the FX2 would have done better around $2,000 USD instead of nearly $3k. The RX1R III closer to $3,500 vs $5,100. And the Fuji X half closer to $500 instead of $850 USD at launch. Then they might have hit their mark so to speak, but they have been panned consistently (or forgotten) since release.

 

[rombe3jr]

Surprised that the Lumix S1RII wasn't mentioned in the list of best of category. But I do appreciate the winner being essentially the best value camera, and bumping that line of thinking up to best camera period. In 2025 it is nice to think that quality photography equipment can be accessible to more people.

 

[roby17269]

I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?
OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

While I do enjoy my MF lenses a lot (HC mount), they are already big and heavy even if the primes are 2.8 or slower. MF primes faster than f/2 are quite rare and there are no 1.4, let alone 1.2 ones. Just saying that FF users’ expectations would need to be adjusted…

 

[EricN]

While I do enjoy my MF lenses a lot (HC mount), they are already big and heavy even if the primes are 2.8 or slower. MF primes faster than f/2 are quite rare and there are no 1.4, let alone 1.2 ones. Just saying that FF users’ expectations would need to be adjusted…

It might look like a large format setup, but I look at it this way: If you're already using more equipment such as lighting than you'd carry around on foot solo, a heavier setup would be more expensive, but you already either take multiple trips to move everything or you have assistants. It could be they don't believe they could make a profit.

 

[roby17269]

It might look like a large format setup, but I look at it this way: If you're already using more equipment such as lighting than you'd carry around on foot solo, a heavier setup would be more expensive, but you already either take multiple trips to move everything or you have assistants.

I already do 2-3 trips home -> car and car -> shoot location when I have all the lights. But that's for very specific shooting. I would still need and want a setup I can carry around for other purposes. And I consider the RF 85 1.2 as something I can easily carry around...
MF lenses can partially "get away" with slower apertures because of the MF sensors' crop factor. But what combo of fl / aperture makese sense on a MF sensor may not make sense on a FF sensor

It could be they don't believe they could make a profit.

I think that is correct. Some people have been clamoring for Canon and Nikon to enter the MF fray, but they haven't, because it is too niche for them

 

[EricN]

For a while, it seemed like a threshold could be reached where almost everyone exclusively used a phone camera and the only people buying photography equipment would be professionals and fanatical hobbyists both types capable of being tempted to spend shameful amounts on niche items. In this way, Canon may have been less likely to do STM and 1.4 lenses

Spoiler: spoiler

they'd have no recourse but to proved you with a
35mm 1.2 L or FASTER!!!

 

[Del Paso]

For a while, it seemed like a threshold could be reached where almost everyone exclusively used a phone camera and the only people buying photography equipment would be professionals and fanatical hobbyists both types capable of being tempted to spend shameful amounts on niche items. In this way, Canon may have been less likely to do STM and 1.4 lenses

Spoiler: spoiler

they'd have no recourse but to proved you with a
35mm 1.2 L or FASTER!!!

Yet I must confess that, during my 3 weeks in Japan, I only saw a tiny number of MILCs and DSLRs, and most of them were APS/C. Believe me or not, I only saw 5 or 6 FF, 1 Nikon DSLR, an EOS 5D III, a Sony A7, 2 R6, an R3. That's about all! One single day in Yellowstone: 50-60 FF and a huge amount of big whites.
But a lot of compacts in Japan! And masses of cellphones...

 

[AlanF]

Yet I must confess that, during my 3 weeks in Japan, I only saw a tiny number of MILFs and DSLRs, and most of them were APS/C. Believe me or not, I only saw 5 or 6 FF, 1 Nikon DSLR, an EOS 5D III, a Sony A7, 2 R6, an R3. That's about all! One single day in Yellowstone: 50-60 FF and a huge amount of big whites.
But a lot of compacts in Japan! And masses of cellphones...

MILFs?

 

[EricN]

Yet I must confess that, during my 3 weeks in Japan, I only saw a tiny number of MILFs and DSLRs, and most of them were APS/C. Believe me or not, I only saw 5 or 6 FF, 1 Nikon DSLR, an EOS 5D III, a Sony A7, 2 R6, an R3. That's about all! One single day in Yellowstone: 50-60 FF and a huge amount of big whites.
But a lot of compacts in Japan! And masses of cellphones...

Thailand and Malaysia were similar as far as cameras.
I am choosing to decline to comment on MILFs as I'm a newly wed and shouldn't even think about it.